A discussion of the skill of improvisation

[Planpanther]

Gird your mind sounds like the traditional confusion spell in D&D/PF.

I know mind control can easily step into uncomfortable territory so I watch for it closely as GM. As players, we are all encouraged to speak up when a line is being approached, and hopefully before its crossed. Sexual situations are off the table! Regular romance happens, but its fade to black for my tables (and never under mind control circumstances).

Usually, mind control ends up turning a PC against the party. I let controlled PCs act this out as long as they keep within the spirit of the situation. As GM, I try and find more creative uses of mind control than this old hat though. One time, I had a vampire mind control a player and ordered the PC to open some jail cells and let some bad guys loose. The other PCs had to decide if they were going to focus on the vamp or stop their buddy. It can make for a real interesting encounters if "kill each other" isnt the only option.

[Interesting Character]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

So, if you're running a system like D&D or PF or even Marvel SH where there are powers or abilities that can take a PC out right off, how do you improv around so that the player of the affected PC isn't sidelined?

I mean, any game that is combat heavy and has a mechanic for tracking health means that, with some bad luck on the part of the character, the PC could either die or fall unconscious. Lots of TTRPGs have fear, paralysis, or worst of all, mind control.

In a purely story game I get how to narrate around or through these things, but if you're playing a system with mechanics attached to these kinds of effects or the loss of health, I don't see how to avoid having to deal with sidelining a player at some point.

Be judicious in the use of such abilities and foreshadow them. Other than that recogonize that while sidelining a character is a bad thing, it is also important.

Having victory be garunteed is worthless, it is hollow, empty, and only satisfies those who have never had better.

In order for there to be tension, there must be risk, and there is only risk when bad things canhappen.

Thus, if characters can't be sidelined, or at least player fell like they can't, then the sense of risk and tension won't be there, and thus the final victory is worthless.

That said, there is a difference between how risky things actually are vs how risky they feel. So, make them feel more risky than they actually are, yet let iy happen often enough that the players know it can happen.

[Haladir]

Planpather wrote:

Gird your mind sounds like the traditional confusion spell in D&D/PF.

Maybe on the surface, but in practice this plays out very differently at the table... especially as the confusion effect in OGL/3.x play typically lasts multiple rounds.

Also note that in "Gird Your Mind," there's no "attack your friends" option (other than if that's what the initial compulsion was and the player accepts the XP to do just that.)

[Planpanther]

Haladir wrote:

Planpather wrote:

Gird your mind sounds like the traditional confusion spell in D&D/PF.

Maybe on the surface, but in practice this plays out very differently at the table... especially as the confusion effect in OGL/3.x play typically lasts multiple rounds.

Also note that in "Gird Your Mind," there's no "attack your friends" option (other than if that's what the initial compulsion was and the player accepts the XP to do just that.)

Yeah that seems too limiting for me. I get why some groups would prefer that. Though, I would argue often in 3E it was not limited enough. I mean, some of those mind control spells give you one save every 24 hours. Thats basically taking a player out for a serious amount of time. I believe the intention was for this to be used on NPCs for a narrative purpose, but the thing about 3E, everything is fair game mechanically.

[thejeff]

Planpanther wrote:

Haladir wrote:

Planpather wrote:

Gird your mind sounds like the traditional confusion spell in D&D/PF.

Maybe on the surface, but in practice this plays out very differently at the table... especially as the confusion effect in OGL/3.x play typically lasts multiple rounds.

Also note that in "Gird Your Mind," there's no "attack your friends" option (other than if that's what the initial compulsion was and the player accepts the XP to do just that.)

Yeah that seems too limiting for me. I get why some groups would prefer that. Though, I would argue often in 3E it was not limited enough. I mean, some of those mind control spells give you one save every 24 hours. Thats basically taking a player out for a serious amount of time. I believe the intention was for this to be used on NPCs for a narrative purpose, but the thing about 3E, everything is fair game mechanically.

Though most of the long term ones are either very obvious, meaning the other PCs will be looking to break you out or give you a good deal of freedom of action within the orders given, meaning you're not really out of play. Things that knock you out, paralyze you or otherwise make you incapable of acting are generally more of an issue - at least if you're forced to attack your friends you're still playing.

Anyways, most of the time they're just in effect for the length of the fight at most - ending with the death of the caster.

It is very much against the grain of 3.x to just rule very effective tactics out of bounds for the bad guys while letting them be used against NPCs, by PCs or the villains.

I don't have a big problem with most of these effects. It can be frustrating if it happens too often, but for a fight once in awhile it's not so bad. I sat out one fight in our Skull and Shackles game recently - dominated and told to wait at the table. I got myself a drink and applauded various moves by both sides until one of the other PCs tricked one of the enemies into attacking me, giving me another save.

[Haladir]

Maybe I've just got a short attention span, but when I'm a player, I find getting sidelined for more than 15-20 min to be a frustrating and unenjoyable experience. This is especially when what's going on at the table is tactical combat... which I often find to be the least interesting part of TTRPGs.

Anecdotes aren't data, but I've found this to be a common experience with other players who've also been sidelined for that long or more.

Ultimately, the point of playing any game is to have fun.

When I GM, I consider my primary responsibility to be making sure that everyone at the table (including me) are all having fun.

Consequently, I try not to throw situations at the party that will sideline players. Sidelining a character is fine, as long as the player still has something to do in the game. This is why I have no qualms with separating characters from each other: I'm pretty good at intercutting scenes between characters in different locations.

[Haladir]

thejeff wrote:

Planpanther wrote:

Yeah that seems too limiting for me. I get why some groups would prefer that. Though, I would argue often in 3E it was not limited enough. I mean, some of those mind control spells give you one save every 24 hours. Thats basically taking a player out for a serious amount of time. I believe the intention was for this to be used on NPCs for a narrative purpose, but the thing about 3E, everything is fair game mechanically.

Though most of the long term ones are either very obvious, meaning the other PCs will be looking to break you out or give you a good deal of freedom of action within the orders given, meaning you're not really out of play. Things that knock you out, paralyze you or otherwise make you incapable of acting are generally more of an issue - at least if you're forced to attack your friends you're still playing.

Anyways, most of the time they're just in effect for the length of the fight at most - ending with the death of the caster.

It is very much against the grain of 3.x to just rule very effective tactics out of bounds for the bad guys while letting them be used against NPCs, by PCs or the villains.

I don't have a big problem with most of these effects. It can be frustrating if it happens too often, but for a fight once in awhile it's not so bad. I sat out one fight in our Skull and Shackles game recently - dominated and told to wait at the table. I got myself a drink and applauded various moves by both sides until one of the other PCs tricked one of the enemies into attacking me, giving me another save.

This gets back to metagame questions of player consent and character autonomy. Basically, if you, the player doesn't consent to what the GM dictates your character does, then there's a problem. The "Gird Your Mind" move from Dungeon World ultimately leaves the choice of what your character does when compelled by a mind-control effect with the player. Choices may be limited, but there are still choices to be made.

If you, the player, has no qualms with the GM taking control of your character after a failed saving throw, then there is no issue. But since a PC is an extension of the player's psyche, the choice need to be be there for the player. When a GM grabs control of a PC and has them do things against the player's wishes, we're in potentially dangerous territory from an emotional perspective.

[Interesting Character]

That's all symptoms of a lack of trust, do the players trust the GM to be fair with handling the character, and vice-versa, is the player trusted (by other players as well as GM) to portray the effects of the compulsion/manipulation fairly? A player that doesn't treat it fairly, undercuts the entire scenario, ruining the experience for everyone at the table.

Also, there is the experience the player gets. If collaborative storytelling, then this is a non-issue since it isn't the point of such games, but in games about the player's experience, the feeling of the loss of control can be important, but only if that feeling isn't overshadowed by the meta-game emotions of distrust of the GM.